CCP 03-08-1993 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

pl "".,h'9' n .....i....ion HeetiJIg 3 3-03-93 . Cl\SE #93-02: (eoni-h,"....) c. That the "Future 1\ddi.tion" shown on the site Plan is not ar:proved as part of this ar:plication. A carplete subnission package and Plannin] Commission review and City Council approval are required prior to construction of this future {ilase. Cllair Winiecki asked if there were any questions or ccmnents from the floor. Hearin] none, she closed the public hearin] at 7:58 pm. Cllair winiecki asked if there were any questions or connnents from the Commission. winiecki questioned the dimensions of the buildin] addition outlined in the Engineer's report. Iago gave a CI:J'f!l of the site plans to Planner Bergly and the dimensions were corrected to 60' x 150'. Erickson questioned the recormnended exteri= buildin] materials f= the GB District. Bergly stated brick, stone and glass are the =ently permitted materials f= this area. He further advised that durin;}' discussions with a developer interested in propos in] a plan for the GB District, it became apparent that clarification of exterior builclinJ materials may be necessary. Bergly suggested Erickson may wish to w=k with staff to assist in definin] buildin] materials. . Rye questioned if the proposed addition meets the setback requirements f= Round lake. Bergly confinned it does. Petersen questioned if there will be sufficient parking to meet requirements when the final phase of expansion is completed. Olair winiecki and Planner Bergly agreed the proposed plans show well over the rEqUired spaces. Winiecki questioned the use of required landscaping in the front of the builclinJ with no provision for any landscapin] in the rear/lakeside of the builclinJ. She noted as the Rourrl lake area is developed, there may be installation of a walking path alorq the lake and without larrlscapin] at the rear of the build:in:J there would be a negative inpact for users of the pathway. She indicated she would prefer to see a landscape plan related to future expansion prior to forwardin] this matter to Council. Bergly commented there was no one present at this time from W. W. Grain]er to address a time frame f= future development. Staff suggested addin] a stipulation for review of the future expansion and related landscapin] issues as a condition f= approval of the SUP. Erickson suggested review of the exterior buildin] materials for the final phase of the proposed expansion also be included as part of the condition. Mdkaw moved, seconded by Piotrowski, to recamnend to . Council to waive the Developnent M:lratorium Ordinance. All voted in favor. (7-0).